madeleine1

There are foundational differences. The first being, the doctrine of Original Sin, and what that means for the world (us) and what the meaning of the Cross is in relationship to Original Sin. That would be a very, very long discussion, that I have had with LDS people before. It is one of those things that is so different, there is no common ground. Revelations is read very differently by LDS, and Evangelical Protestants. A type of reading that did not exist until the 19th century. While I know LDS do not believe in the rapture, some of the interpretations reached for a conclusion of 'end times' prophecies and 'signs of the times' sort of ideas, are shared. I recommend the book, "The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation" by Dr. Barbara R. Rossing. (She is a Lutheran pastor.) Though the book is aimed at Rapture theology (particular to the "Left Behind Series"), her explanation of Revelations, as believed by the majority of Christianity until the 19th century, would go far into explaining the Catholic stance on the Book of Revelations. In short, we are not millenialists. But yes, as Catholics we await the perousia. I would say we have a deeper meaning to what this means, as related to the Eucharist. Where the past, present and future are made present to us. Which, brings up an entirely new tangent not discussed, the concept of eternity and time. Time does not exist for God, and so the millenialist idea of a literal "1000 years", is not literal to us but represents "a long period of time". This long period of time began when death was conquered by Jesus Christ. The Paschal Mystery: the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We believe Satan is conquered NOW, not at some point in the future. This is what I mean by LDS are waiting for something that has already occurred. Peace.

It is a definitive difference I have noticed. Mormons are waiting for something to happen that already has happened. Jesus Christ, reconciled the world to the Father. This isn't something that will happen, it has happened. Jews are also still waiting, so no, they are not Christians. All things are summed up in Christ (Ephesians 1:9-10). All things are reconciled through Him, making peace by the Blood of the Cross. (1 Col 1:20) He is the Way and there is no other. God is not the wedge that divides us, it is our own blindness. It is Jesus Christ who heals the blind. Peace.

Judaism is not proto-Christianity. Gnosticism is not proto-Mormonism. Jesus did not divide, He unites all of humanity in Himself. The Church is His Body, and one cannot divide the Body of Christ, not any more than you can divide yourself. Peace.

I am not ignoring history. :) I am also not ignoring that we learn from mistakes. John Paul II brought this recognition to where it should be, when he asked publicly for forgiveness for the wrong-doings of the Catholic Church. It is also more complicated than saying "the Catholic Church did X". Ruling governments seeking control over their kingdoms did many things under the name of God and in the name of the Church. I am not well-versed in Protestant doctrines, however, Protestants have not forgone orthodoxy. Most profess the same faith, and so are rightly called our separated brethren. Clearly there are Apostolic teachings that are correct and "secret knowledge" of gnosticism was never an Apostolic teaching. It can be argued that gnosticism existed before the birth of Christ. A form of religion that took on what it liked and morphed it to its own uses. Somewhat I might point out, to how Mormonism functions. So it is not a surprise that Mormons defend gnosticism when there are elements of gnosticism in Mormonism. The other thing is, this tendency in Mormonism to not accept anything that just might be orthodox and instead go looking for the "loose canons", as it were. It is very puzzling, to say the least. The Bible teaches of unity. The Apostolic faith is not fractured into many pieces. There is one faith, one baptism. Faith seeks understanding, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the true faith is preserved. Otherwise, one must go down the path that the Holy Spirit either was not present in Christ's Church or God supported division rather than unity. Protestantism fractured the unity of the faith. Mormonism does so even further. (You should understand that is how I see these arguments to bring out errors and heresies that existed long, long ago.) From the Catholic view, this is not the work of God. Peace.

To be clear, from a Catholic view one can only be a heretic if they were once Catholic, professing the faith and then corrupting its dogmas. I don't think I could come up with one Protestant today who is a heretic. The term is tossed around on the internet freely, but in reality, there are few who can truly be called "heretic". Martin Luther, certainly having professed the Catholic faith and professed the solemn vows of Holy Orders, was and is declared a heretic. (Not to slag on him, but only to point out a matter of fact. There are several things I admire about Luther and several points that he had nailed absolutely, which were reformed within the Catholic Church. But that is another conversation for another day!) Those who follow the Protestant reformers are not heretics. There remain heresies in Protestant doctrines, from a Catholic view, but the people who adhere to them are not heretics. Also, the Catholic Church does not seek to impose, but to propose, the first proposition being the Love of God for all mankind. Until a person accepts this proposition as a reality, the Church has nothing to say to that person (paraphrasing John Paul II). The Early Church Fathers record the refutations of several gnostic errors. The first seven councils of the Catholic Church, which are accepted universally by nearly ALL Christians, declared as anathema several gnostic teachings. The councils are accepted as authoritative insofar as one believes the Holy Spirit guided them. As far as I know, the major Protestant denominations do not declare the Catholic Church gone astray until much later than these councils. Certainly, not accepting the decrees of the Council of Trent! Yes, there were several "brands" of gnosticism, but their most pervasive commonality are Christological errors, of various kinds. Peace.

Yes, I understand this. My own perspective is, Mormonism/Restorationism is a result, a product if you will, of Protestantism. All rely on a belief that Jesus abandoned what He established. None holding the authority given to Christ's Church. BTW, Catholics also hold a belief in the priesthood of all believers. By virtue of our baptisms (Catholic and most Protestants included), we all partake in the divine High Priesthood of Jesus Christ. We are in agreement that Jesus is our only High Priest, Prophet and King. Catholics also believe in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, whereby the keys handed to the Apostles are passed on, by the laying on of hands, to the successors of the Apostles. The Protestant Reformation was a reaction to excesses of some Catholics. The difference is, as a Catholic I don't believe Jesus abandons us, or calls us to give in to the Protestant temptation to abandon what is His. Rather, we are called to turn to Christ, and deepen our discipleship. Made possible only by Jesus Christ Himself, who we seek forgiveness from and find our justification. When we call to mind our sins, and seek the forgiveness of Jesus Christ, we plead, "look not on our sins but on the faith of Your Church". Protestants and Mormons would have us believe that there must be a point where we are too filthy to be cleansed by the atonement of Jesus Christ. I don't believe this is the message of Christ Crucified. Rather, it is the depth of our depravity and suffering when we need Him most of all and where we find the Mercy of God. Peace.

I just think it sounds overly complex, where the Gospel is so beautifully simple. Catholics who are in an abusive relationship are not required to remain married. A person who has received the Sacrament of Marriage has made certain vows before God. If those vows are broken by one of the spouses, the other is not required to remain married. As to what early Christians believed, of course there were false prophets and teachers, which is why Jesus Christ established His Church, born at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the baptized. There must be a place for people to learn of Jesus Christ, and the Good News of His Resurrection: Our Salvation. To guide the faithful through the thorns and thistles, such as those of gnostic teachers. It is a fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism (Mormonism being a child of Protestantism). Catholics believe that God has never left us orphans, and has guided His Church through the ages. To not be Catholic requires that you believe Jesus abandoned His people! The question of Canon then becomes one of, if you don't believe the Catholic Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, produced a correct Bible, why do you use it? Why not add the "Gospel of Phillip"? Peace.

I would like to understand what you are saying, but it sounds to me that you believe that a person's who's marriage is something of a nightmare would be punished for not wanting to be with the person who is the cause of their suffering. (?) For example, a spouse who is abused or neglected, or even seriously harmed by the person they are married to. Do you mean to say that by not wanting to be with such a person for eternity that this endangers one's eternal station?

No, I do not believe we will be married. I do believe our relationship, the unity of our marriage, will be perfected in and through, Jesus Christ. I too do not know what that will look like. Heaven, not being a place of suffering or despair, but that of the destiny that God has prepared for us. It is God who understands our every need. We lack this understanding ourselves, and so we are reliant on Him. Peace.

prisonchaplain - I agree to your point, only with the added comment that I believe 100% that if I am judged to be with God in heaven, and my husband is also, we will be united in Christ. I have yet to figure out why Mormons think this is something less then perfect, as though Jesus would do something half way for us, and nothing more. It really is something I don't understand about LDS belief, at all.

Hello - I'd say that it is LDS who read a teaching of Jesus as not applying to themselves. What else in scripture to you think Jesus taught that does not apply? The "Gospel of Philip" teaches what Catholicism teaches. It doesn't say anything about physical temple building but likens the Sacraments to aspects of the temple. Jesus fulfilled the purpose of the Jewish temple in Himself. He is our sacred temple, His Church is the temple, and is comprised of living stones, who are the baptized. We die with Him in order to be raised again. Peace.

It is Jesus who teaches us that there is no marriage in heaven, not the Pharisees. To marriage itself, for Catholics, the Sacraments prefigure heaven, just as the sacrifice of the lamb prefigured Jesus Christ. Christ fulfilled the law, and in the same way, He will fulfill all things, including our relationships to each other. Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church. It is divinely ordered (not as in decreed but as in created). Each family is in itself a "domestic church". Where children are raised to know God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Just as God is not alone, but a communion of three, so our families are made in this image, which is at its essence, love. The familial love we have for our families in this life will be perfected by Jesus and through Jesus in the next. In this, God withholds nothing. When we hear the Word of God say, there is no marriage in heaven, we understand it not as something that is ended, but that is fulfilled. Just as the sacrifice of the lamb by the Jews was fulfilled, in Jesus Christ. Peace.

God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven. To gain the happiness of heaven we must know, love, and serve God in this world.

Circling back to the original topic :) when you say God does not want some of us to be eternally damned...then are we in agreement, that God would not prepare for something He does not desire? Thus, why create something less, and call it a choice? Free will is not about creating choices that are against the will of God. God only has one will for us, not three ore more. If you go down that path, then I can only see a conclusion where one must believe that God is the creator of evil, in order that we might choose sin. Free will is about being able to choose to love God freely. This is why God created us, and why He has given us free will. He didn't give us free will in order that we could sin. When we go against God's desires, we are abusing our free will, not exercising it as God intended. He is the creator of our freedom. He did not create us to sin, or to suffer. It is not about following rules, it is about using God's gifts as they were intended. But finally, no, I am not talking about two different ideas. But I'll leave it at these few things here...wondering if there can be an agreement on the definition of free will, before conversing further. Peace.

St. Paul makes few comments, where, he describes himself as the "slow learner". For example, in Romans 7: 15 What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I concur that the law is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want. 20 Now if (I) do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 21 So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand. 22 For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self, 23 but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 5 24 Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin. The prodigal son is an example of being slow. While the son was wandering, what was he accountable for? Only God could answer this. I will only say, from a Catholic perspective, no one knows the heart of another person, or their intention. Many wander, some return, others die while journeying and never return. The desire to follow God in our own understanding is all anyone can do and what all be judged for. The prodigal son is also an example of our Salvation, as a whole. By one man death and sin entered the world, by another Man, all are Saved. We are brought home to the Father, through the Son. As a people, the human race, and as individuals, each one of us precious and well-loved by God. We're all slow. The moment anyone believes they are the fast learner, and possess everything they need to know, is the moment they have become the slowest learner of all! Peace.

I guess I don't understand what you are asking. God is God, and is not reliant on us, at all. We are reliant on God. There is but one response that God desires from us, and that is to love God with all our hearts, might, mind and strength and likewise to love our neighbor as ourselves. From this, everything else regarding our faith, our life, will flow. Our obedience to God comes from love of God, not out of a desire to do something we don't believe or accept. In the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God has made manifest His love for ALL. This is clearly taught in the NT. Christ died once for all. This is not something that can be undone because you don't want it. It is a very odd view to think that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ only has meaning for those who accept Jesus. The meaning and affect exist, as a fact, and don't cease to exist or have meaning because you don't believe. The Reality of Jesus Christ cannot be undone. All will be judged according to God's purpose, which has made known through Jesus Christ as a desire to be justified before the Father. There is nothing in scripture that indicates God's purpose, His desire for us, includes a separation from Himself. The unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in our Salvation is that of One God, and they cannot be divided.

Which of course, that is not the message of Christianity, at all. The prodigal son being an example of a slow learner. Peace.

God is love, created us from this love. Jesus commands us to love God. Love is never forced. God did not ask our permission for anything, as everything is done according to HIS Will, not ours. Our creation is the intention of God's Will, not ours. When we do not love God, we are doing so according to our own will, not God's. This is the definition of sin: rebellion against God. The Father, in His unconditional and eternal love for us, sent us a Son. Jesus is God Incarnate, the perfection of all humans, and the love of God made manifest in the world. What, do you get out this, that is forced? Does a parent force their child to eat? Or is a child fed in order that they might not die? In the same way, Jesus is the Bread of Life. Peace.

Hello Family_Man, I don't see in scripture a description of heaven that is anything less than mansions. Your view also leaves out repentance and forgiveness. Especially, forgiveness. Salvation is freely given, we agree there. I don't see that we are in agreement on the powerful nature of Salvation. Our redemption is on the level of our creation, is how I understand our Salvation. I exist because God created me, out of love, not because I created myself. I am saved because God saved me, out of love, not because I saved myself. Salvation is something I receive, with profound gratitude, not something I take. To say I must consent to my creation or my salvation is like saying I must consent to the sun rising or the flower blooming. What consent am I going to give to these things? I can cooperate with God, as I believe I should, but God is not going to cease to be God because I don't. Creation would not cease to exist and neither would salvation. I cannot perfect myself any more than I create or save myself. Only through Jesus Christ, and His unity with the Father and Holy Spirit, am I saved. It is a grace, not a self-creation. In the same way, heaven, the place where God dwells, is not diminished by my imperfections. Quite the opposite, my imperfections are made perfect by God: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God, not being diminished because of my imperfections, would have no need of a diminished heaven because of those same imperfections. It is through Him I am made clean to stand in His presence. Peace.

Jason-J, the God I worship has not prepared a second or third best place for me, and made something less a choice. His desire is nothing less than a joyous union, through Jesus Christ. The mansion He has prepared for me is greater than any can imagine. This is not through my work, but through God, alone. Unfortunately, our conversation has turned to a feeling where I perceive you think I am attacking, when I am not. I am no longer comfortable with these sort of conversations, where God is brought down to this type of argument, so I wish you a blessed Sabbath and hope you find peace in the love and mercy of Jesus Christ. I leave you with the second reading for this day, from the second letter of St. Paul to the Timoth (2 Timothy 1:8-10). Beloved: Bear your share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God. He saved us and called us to a holy life, not according to our works but according to his own design and the grace bestowed on us in Christ Jesus before time began, but now made manifest through the appearance of our savior Christ Jesus, who destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. Peace.

You are conflating distinct as divided, which, this belief that God can be divided is a heresy. It is a similar argument that is put forth by our brothers in the Muslim faith. It is an error in understanding of Trinitarian doctrine. The Divine Being, GOD, who we worship, is not made separate by the Incarnation. This is Trinitarian doctrine. I don't know why you insist that it is not? God is One, and cannot be divided, not any more than you can be divided. If your will is to spend $100 dollars today to aid the poor, there is not another part of you that is simultaneously playing the same $100 dollars at the craps table in Vegas. The division is illogical and cannot occur. God cannot simultaneously will your perfection through Jesus Christ while doing something that is outside of this will. The division is illogical and cannot occur. I understand the language you are using. It is a language that purposely divides God. I am not talking about modalism. I am talking about God, who is One being, and has one Will, not three.

Jason_J- You are not understanding my argument, or apparently, Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Your point? Do Mormons worship this "Godhead", if not, what do you think you are in the presence of? Jason_J, God wills that we are perfected through Jesus Christ. Anything less than that is nothing. Certainly, I can't see this division of God as a reward system, but a manmade desire to mold God to some sort of comprise. God does not compromise, and His will is not divided. Peace.

remeumptom, I know Christian history. I believe God gave the gift of the Holy Spirit to His Church, at Pentecost, whereby she is lead. I can never understand Mormons bringing up the Church Fathers. Origen had opinions that were never Christian doctrine and are not Christian doctrine. He also adhered to doctrines that are Catholic, and very central to the Catholic faith, that Mormons have rejected. So I don't know what your point is. I hold no belief in many Gods, but the One God, all powerful and ever loving. I don't see this One God in Mormonism, at all. Peace

Jason_J- I don't have any desire to argue about God. There are foundational differences, the first being, that God gave us free will in order that we could love him freelly. Not so that we could choose to go against His will. We aren't rewarded for going against God. Jesus conquered death and sin. The life to come is begun by our Final Judgement, where Christ is Victorious. There isn't a sort-of, kind-of, conquering where evil is rewarded. Peace.

Jason-J- I don't intend to perform catechesis here. :) But there can be no mistaking, three distinct persons (Trinity) for three divided Gods (Mormonism). To do so is not correct Christian doctrine. There is a vast difference in understanding Who God IS, between Mormons and Christianity. While we have similarities, this area is not one of them, and it doesn't serve justice to either belief to try to make a syncretic theology out of the two and call them the same thing. The Son's Incarnation does not make Him a separate being from God from the Father and the Spirit. This is basic Christian teaching. Basic Mormon teaching is that Jesus is a separate being, an exalted human, which in no way describes One God. There is One Kingdom One God, Mormons have three kingdoms, they are even named in such a manner. Two are separate from the God who Mormons worship, as it has been explained to me that Mormons only worship the Father. Being separate from God, who we worship, is the definition of hell not heaven, for a Christian. God is divided in this, as God does not desire for us to have but a part of Himself. I don't know anyone who would call that perfect, and heaven is a place where we are perfected, through Jesus Christ, and no one else. If Jesus is not present in a "kingdom" then there is no perfection, and thus no heaven. There is nothing in heaven that is not of God's will, so a belief that God wills a heaven that is short of the beatific vision, is self-creation of a divided will, which divides God. As God is One, and has but One Will. Peace.